Bible

John Bright on Biblical Intertextuality

/ davidsschrock

John Bright, in his book The Kingdom of God, offers a very historically-enriching and theologically-astute presentation of the kingdom which unifies the entire Bible.  I have benefitted much from reading it, especially in the way that he looks at the people under God’s rule as a unified and yet developing body of believers.  In this outline, he is much like Graeme Goldsworthy, who emphasizes God’s people, under God’s rule, in God’s place, but Bright’s pages are more comprehensive in scope, being filled with copious details about the kings of Israel, the dynasties of foreign nations, and the who’s, the when’s, and the how’s of Israel’s history. (It is noteworthy that Goldsworthy references Bright’s work at the end of many chapters in his book According to Plan). 

In The Kingdom of God, there are many helpful subjects, but I found this description of the Bible’s intertextuality most helpful.   He writes,

The Old Testament is, therefore, as it were, an incomplete book.  It is a story whose Author has not yet written the ending; it is a signpost pointing down a road whose destination–and surely its destination is a city, the City of God (Heb. 11:10, 16)–lies out of sight around many a bend.  [The OT] is a noble building indeed–but it lack a roof!

That roof, by its own affirmation, the New Testament supplies: in announcing in Christ the fulfillment of the hope of Israel it stands as the completion of the Old Testament.  But–and this must not be forgotten–to say that is at the same time to say that it cannot be understood to itself alone apart from the Old Testament.  If the Old Testament be a building without a roof, the New Testament alone may be very like a roof without a building–and that is a structure very hard to comprehend and very hard to hold up!  It is a structure that may be put to all sorts of uses and may shelter all sorts of things, but it is a structure which may be easily be knocked down.  By this we certainly do not mean to say the New Testament is merely an appendage of the Old, or to deny Christ is himself the cornerstone of a mighty building (1 Cor. 3:11; 1 Pet. 2:4-7), but only to insist that it is impossible to set the New Testament apart and to construct a purely New Testament religion without regard to the faith of Israel.

The New Testament rests on and is rooted in the Old.  To ignore this fact is a serious error in method, and one that is bound to lead to a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bible message.  he who commits it has disregarded the central affirmation of the New Testament gospel itself, namely Christ had come to make actual what the Old Testament hoped for, not to destroy it and replace it with a new and better faith (John Bright, The Kingdom of God [Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1953]).

May we never stop marveling at the wisdom and beauty of God’s holy Word.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Receiving and Believing the Word of God

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

When was the last time you started your car and consciously thought about the internal combustion engine involved?  Or how often do you eat and enjoy a meal without knowing the way it was prepared or the origin of all its ingredients?  Or more technically, do you ever think about the processes involved to make Wifi work?  Probably not until the router goes down.  While each of these examples could be studied in great detail and are, it is not necessary to fully understand their intricate operations, to enjoy the experience of driving, eating, or surfing the web.  While ASE certified technicians, sous chefs, and computer hackers benefit from the advanced studies in these areas, knowledge is secondary to the faithful enjoyment of these things.

Similarly, Herman Bavinck remarks concerning the relationship between biblical studies and Christian belief, that faith precedes understanding (cf. 2 Pet. 1:6-8).  In a lengthy section defending the historic belief that the Triune God inspired the very words of the Bible, the faithful Dutch Reformer writes with wry wisdom,

Those who do not want to embark on scientific investigation until they see the road by which we arrive at knowledge fully cleared will never start.  Those who do not want to eat before they understand the entire process by which food arrives at the table will starve to death.  And those who do not want to believe the Word of God before they see all problems will die of spiritual starvation (Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena, vol. 1 [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003], 442).

Bavinck’s words, written in an age when science, historical-criticism, and the Enlightenment Spirit were fueling modernism and eroding faith (ca. 1900), remind us that to profit from the Scriptures we must believe they are God’s words (2 Tim. 3:16-17), given from God through his prophet and apostles (2 Pet. 1:19-21), to his church for the purpose of salvific wisdom, life, godliness, and grace that leads to repentance in Jesus Christ.  Arrogantly waiting for all the “cruxes” and inconsitencies to be resolved in the Scriptures will only lead to an impoverished understanding of the Bible and a wrath-inviting position before God.

Bavinck’s words and his whole treatment of the subject of the Scripture’s inspiration insist that to fully understand the Bible we must begin with faith (cf. Rom. 10:17).  Only then can can we labor over the texts as a spiritual service of worship that enables us to test and approve the good, perfect, and pleasing will of God (Rom. 12:2).  In coming to study the Bible we must do so as needy sinners standing under the judgment of God, and not intellectual zealots bringing finite and foolish judgments against the infinitely wise and eternal God.  For in truth, biblical understanding is a gift from God (cf. Prov. 2:1-7) and an ability not naturally possessed (1 Cor. 1-2). 

Such a position does not laud men and their schemas, but God and his grace.  Thus we must come receptive in order to believe, and this receptivity only occurs because God in his mercy sends his Spirit to prepare our hearts to receive his word.  From first to last, the revelation of God is supernatural and gracious, and must be considered as one of God’s greatest acts of kind condescension.  The human heart writhes under the pressure of this self-effacing position, but it preserves the pearls of God from being trampled by unbelieving swine.  

May those who have ears to hear, hear the Word of God and believe.

Soli Deo Gloria, dss

The Theologian’s Task

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

What is the task of a Christian theologian?  Or more generally, what is the task of understanding Christian doctrine?

Herman Bavinck answers that question in the opening chapter of his four-volume Reformed Dogmatics.  He writes,

The imperative task of the dogmatician [or theologian] is to think God’s thoughts after him and to trace their unity.  His work is not finished until he has mentally absorbed this unity and set if forth in a dogmatics.  Accordingly, he does not come to God’s revelation with a ready-made system in order, as best he can, to force its content into it.  On the contrary, even in his system a theologian’s sole responsibility is to think God’s thoughts after him and to reproduce the unity that is objectively present in thoughts of God and has been recorded for the eye of faith in Scripture… (Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena, vol. 1 [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003], 44).

He continues later to describe the synthesizing and organizing work that theology entails to help understand and assemble God’s word,

dogmatics is not a kind of biblical theology that stops at the words of Scripture.  Rather, according to Scripture itself, dogmatics has the right to rationally absorb its content and, guided by Scripture, to rationally process it and also to acknowledge as truth that which can be deduced from it by lawful inference (45).

Whether you are a theologian or not, may you seek to absorb God’s word and think God’s thoughts after Him.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

New Studies in Biblical Theology Index

/ davidsschrock

Andy Naselli has prepared an invaluable service for those committed to mining the biblical-theological depths of the Bible.  He has compiled a Scripture index for the twenty-four volume (and growing) New Studies in Biblical Theology series edited by D.A. Carson, with contributors like Andreas Kostenberger, G.K. Beale, Stephen Dempster, and others.  This is how Naselli describes it:

I recently prepared a master Scripture index for the New Studies in Biblical Theology series edited by D. A. Carson. I combined the Scripture indexes into a single spreadsheet and placed an asterisk by each page number where there is a discussion rather than merely a reference or brief comment. This is an especially valuable resource for those who are working on individual texts and would like to consult substantive discussions in the NSBT series.

Next time you need to research something in the Scriptures, this would be a great help.

Thanks, Andy.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss.

(HT: Garrett Wishall).

Herman Bavinck and Peter Enns on an Incarnational Analogy of Scripture

/ davidsschrock

Peter Enns, in an online article about the authority of Scripture, summarizes his understanding of Scripture’s authority with a quote by Herman Bavinck.  Appealing to the systematician’s understanding that the two natures of Christ parallel the two natures of Scripture, Enns writes:

I can think of no better way of expressing this idea [the incarnational analogy] than by using (as I have used on numerous occasions in the recent past) the words of Herman Bavinck, the Dutch Reformed theologian. In volume one of his Reformed Dogmatics, Bavinck writes that a doctrine of Scripture,

….is the working out and application of the central fact of revelation: the incarnation of the Word. The Word (Logos) has become flesh (sarx), and the word has become Scripture; these two facts do not only run parallel but are most intimately connected. Christ became flesh, a servant, without form or comeliness, the most despised of human beings; he descended to the nethermost parts of the earth and became obedient even to death on the cross. So also the word, the revelation of God, entered the world of creatureliness, the life and history of humanity, in all the human forms of dream and vision, of investigation and reflection, right down into that which is humanly weak and despised and ignoble…. All this took place in order that the excellency of the power…of Scripture, may be God’s and not ours. (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 1: Prolegomena [trans. J. Vriend; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003], 434–35; [Enns’] emphasis.)

This quote may give the impression that Bavinck and Enns are lockstep in their understanding of Scripture’s origin and nature.  For those familiar with Enns’ book, Inspiration and Incarnation, it may elicit the question, “What does Bavinck think about the human nature of Scripture?”  Does he, like Enns, press the incarnation model for all its cultural molding, or relegate the biblical texts to mythological stories copied from Israel’s neighbors?   What does Bavinck think about inerrancy? 

First, to put “inerrancy” into the mouth of the Dutch theologian would be anachronistic, though I think his theology harmonizes with and anticipates the idea (cf. Gaffin’s book ,God’s Word in Servant Form, treats Bavinck’s–and Abraham Kuyper’s–doctrine of Scripture in detail).  Likewise, in comparing these men, it must be recognized that their settings in time and location, as well as, their divergent scholastic aims, may not allow a straight-forward comparison.  Further, even Enns himself admits that Bavinck “says a lot more” on the subject of Scripture, thus Enns makes room for difference between the late theologian and himself.  Nevertheless, since the question was posed on another blogpost concerning Enns and Bavinck, I will try to show some of that distance.  

I think to answer the question of whether Bavinck and Enns would agree with one another, one simply needs to read the next paragraph in Bavinck’s dogmatic textbook.  As is usually the case, context clarifies, and in this case, it helps demonstrate that Herman Bavinck’s “incarnational analogy” is not quite the same as Peter Enns.   The former grounds his human authorship in the unerring veracity of God communicating by the Spirit of Truth, the other emphasizes the human factor so much that Divine inspiration takes on a new meaning.

Bavinck concludes the paragraph cited by Enns saying, “Everything is divine and everything is human” (435), and then he explicates this idea with an important caveat in the next paragraph (which begins a new section):

This organic view [of inspiration, which Bavinck eventually affirms with qualifications] has been repeatedly used, however to undermine the authorship of the Holy Spirit, the primary author.  The incarnation of Christ demands that we trace it down into the depths of of its humiliation, in all its weakness and contempt.  The recording of the word, of revelation, invites us to recognize that dimension of weakness and lowliness, the servant form, also in Scripture.  But just as Christ’s human nature, however weak and lowly, remained free from Sin, so also Scripture is ‘conceived without defect or stain’; totally human in all its parts but also divine in all its parts (emphasis mine, 435).

In the next section, Bavinck draws on trends in historical theology, showing sensitivity to more modern understandings of precision, and urging caution models of inspiration that slide from word, to idea, to ultimate denial.  He continues:

Yet, in many different ways, injustice has been done to that divine character of Scripture.  The history of inspiration shows us that first, till deep into the seventeenth century, it was progressively expanded even to the vowels and the punctuation (inspiratio punctualis) and in the following phase progressively shrunk, from punctuation to the words (verbal inspiration), from the individual words to the Word, the idea (Word in place of verbal inspiration).  Inspiration further shrunk from the word as idea to the subject matter of the word (inspiratio realis), then from the subject matter to the religous-ethical content, to that which has been revealed in the true sense, to the Word of God in the strict sense, to the special object of saving faith (inspiratio fundamentalis, religiosa), from these matters to the persons (inspiratio personalis), and finally from this to the denial of all inspiration as supernatural gift (435).

Think what you will of Bavinck’s historical analysis and slippery slope argument, but one thing is clear: Peter Enns and Herman Bavinck do not share the same understanding of Scripture.  In fact, in the pages that follow in Bavinck’s chapter on “The Inspiration of Scripture,” their doctrinal disparity grows.  I will conclude with just one more treatment of his illuminating work that highlights the difference.  Concluding his section on organic inspiration he again touches on the incarnational model, only here Bavinck develops it with a detail that exceeds Inspiration & Incarnation. (Admittedly, Enns has developed this approach with greater focus since I & I, see his 2007 CTJ article, but differences in their incarnational models remain).  Bavinck summarizes:

Inspiration has to be viewed organically, so that even the lowliest part has its place and meaning and at the same time is much farther removed from the center than other parts.  In the human organism nothing is accidental, neither its length, nor its breadth, not its color or its tint.  This is not, however, to say that everthing is equally closely connected with its life center.  The head and the heart occupy a much more important place in the body that the hand or the foot, and these again are greatly superior in value to the nails and the hair.  In Scripture, as well, not everything is equally close to the center.  There is a periphery, which moves in a wide path aroung the center, yet also that periphery belongs to the circle of divine thoughts.  Accordingly, there are no kinds and degrees in ‘graphic’ inspiration.  The hair of one’s head shares in the same life as the heart and the hand.  There is one and the same Spirit from whom, through consciousness of the authors, the whole Scripture has come.  But there is a difference in the manner in which the same life is present and active in the different parts of the body.  There is diversity of gifts, also in Scripture, but it is the same Spirit (438-39, emphasis mine).

In the end, appeals to men are like appeals to tradition.  They are helpful and historic, but they do not trump the Bible itself.  I think ultimately, Enns and Bavinck, would go back to the Bible to make their case.  Only, I think they would do so with divergent degrees of confidence in the Bible’s inspiration–Bavinck asserting inspiration from the unerring Spirit of Truth through men; Enns ascribing origination from men with assistance from the Spirit.  This a nuanced difference, but one that ultimately affirms or denies the authority of the Scriptures.  One makes Scripture God’s unique self-revelation, the other a error-proned attestation to the God who lisps. 

The point here is not ultimately to solve the inerrancy debate, but simply to observe the difference between Enns and Bavinck in their similar usage of the “incarnational analogy.”  For while Enns bolsters his case with citations from Bavinck, the superficial similarities do not go beyond the surface.  Both scholars employ an incarnational analogy for understanding Scripture, but they explain this analogy differently as the preceding quotations demonstrate.  In the end, Enns is not a reincarnation of Bavinck, but hopefully his scholastic dependence on the Reformed theologian will help others glean from Bavinck’s commitment to biblical inspiration and authority in ways that Enns does not.

[For more on Bavinck’s doctrine of scripture, see Richard Gaffin’s book on the subject, God’s Word in Servant Form].

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

The Gospel of Genesis (Review)

/ davidsschrock / 8 Comments

Warren Austin Gage, The Gospel of Genesis: Studies in Protology and Eschatology (Winona Lake, IN: Carpenter Books, 1984). 

If you like Gregory Beale, Meredith Kline, and William Dumbrell, then you will like Warren Austin Gage.  Advocating typology, predictive prophecy, and God’s sovereign designs over history, Dr. Gage, Old Testament professor at Knox Theological Seminary, constructs a compelling case for biblical protology in his illuminating little book, The Gospel of Genesis.

Packed with biblical allusions and intertextual connections, Gage demonstrates how the first seven chapters of Genesis set a pattern that is picked up throughout the rest of the Bible.  The pattern is five-fold and corresponds with five major doctrinal loci: God, Man, Sin, Redemption (individual and corporate), and Judgment (5).  Speaking of these protological structures, he writes:

The thesis of this chapter [which goes on to outline the rest of the book] is that the chronicle of prediluvian history (Genesis 1-7) is composed of five theologically fundamental narratives, each of which finds consecutive, synthetic parallel in the history (and prophecy) of the postdiluvian world.  Consequently, by understanding the historical movement initiated in early Genesis, we may discern the relationship between the beginning and the ending of biblical history (9).

Fleshing out his thesis, Gage shows in chapters 3-7 how Moses lays out the archtypal storyline in Genesis 1-7: 

  1. YHWH’s speaks the cosmos into existence, the six days of work followed by the Sabbath rest stamps on creation a divine pattern for life on the earth (1:1-2:3);
  2. The triune God creates Adam and Eve in his image and commissions them as vice-regents over the earth (1:26-31; 2:4ff); this is followed by the their covenant-breaking, disobedient fall (3:1-14);
  3. The sovereign judge of the universe pronounces a curse on all creation, but with the redemptive promise that a serpent-crushing seed would come to save his people (3:15-19)
  4. Community and ecclesiology (i.e. the gathering of men) begins with the establishment of two lines of men–the sons of Cain and the sons of Seth– which parallel the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman (3:15; 4:1ff); and
  5. God’s retributive justice is manifested in the watery judgment of the earth and all its evil inhabitants.  Here, God’s wrath destroys all those living in flagrant unrighteousness, yet this ‘day of the Lord’ YHWH saves a remnant of people (Moses et al) from whom he will establish a new humanity (6:1ff). 

This pattern, Gage argues, sets the pattern for biblical history, and where space permits, he shows how Abraham, David, and Jesus fulfill these patterns in later history.  But making his case even stronger, Gage also shows how in the days of Noah, this five-fold cycle is reduplicated (Gen. 8-11).  Much like Irenaeus’ vision of Christ’s work of recapitulation, Gage shows how these patterns in history are not accidental, but rather intentional.  As Isaiah 46:9-10 says of YHWH, “For I am God, and there is no other’ I am God, and there is not one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying ‘My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure.”  This is what he calls “protology”–the study of first things. 

Now, if you accept this reading of Genesis 1-7, it admittedly impacts the entire way that you read Scripture.  Over against theological systems like Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, which derive their interpretive methods from dogmatic considerations derived from later revelation (and church history), a protological/eschatological reading of the Biblical narrative is much more inductive.  It argues for a cyclical reading of God’s redemption and revelation that finds its key within the Scriptures itself.  Accordingly, this approach is helpful for ‘getting a feel’ for the big picture in redemptive history; however, like any system of interpretation, it might force the reader using this schema to misinterpret or bend biblical data for the sake of the pattern. 

Certainly, responses to Gage may very.  There will be “literalists” who would charge Gage with allegory, speculative typology, and spurious biblical connections.  For instance, his acceptance of a chiastic pattern in biblical theology makes his presentation of history very orderly and economic, perhaps too unified.  But to those who make such a case, it may be asked, “What kind of history should we expect from the maker of heaven and earth, the sovereign over history, the author of our salvation?”  Everything about God commends order, structure, symmetry, and divine intentionality.  So it would make sense that God would structure all of history according to his eternal plans of glorifying Himself by saving sinnners. 

With that said, it could be conceded that some of his interpretive moves and interconnections may not warranted, but that does not make illegitimate his overarching thesis.  These criticisms are more a matter of isolated passages, and not interpretive method.  On the whole, I think Gage’s argument stands up.  It provides a helpful rubric for reading the Bible, starting with Genesis and moving towards the climax of history in the two advents of Jesus Christ.   It commends a high view of inspiration and scriptural authority.  It moves all things to find their end in Christ, and it compels the biblical reader to see what God has been and is now doing.  In my estimation, it is a very helpful approach to understanding and applying biblical theology on a macro-scale.

For more on the subject of protology see J.V. Fesko, Last Things First; on recapitulation: Irenaeus, Against Heresies; on reading the Bible as it presents itself: Richard Lints, The Fabric of Theology; and on the connection between Genesis and Revelation: G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Take This Book and Read :: 2009 Bible Reading Plans

/ davidsschrock / 2 Comments

The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; 

the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; 

the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;

the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes;

the fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever;

the rules of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether. 

More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; 

sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb.
Moreover, by them is your servant warned; 

in keeping them there is great reward. (Psalm 19:7-11)

 

Psalm 19, and in fact the whole Bible, is clear about Scripture’s perfection, wisdom, necessity, purity, veracity, and value, not to mention the benefit and pleasure of its Words.  It is all of these things because it is God’s perfect revelation to his covenant people.  And his people cannot live without it.  For those who have our hope set on heaven, God’s Word is not a trifling thing, it is our life (cf. Deuteronomy 32:41).  It is essential because its words reveal to us our Triune God and God’s gracious plan for salvation–Jesus Christ.  Nothing else compares.

But too often we neglect this book.  Sometimes for lack of desire.  Sometimes for lack of discipline.  If the former, pray!  But if the latter, pray and plan!  And in your planning, it might be helpful to use a reading guide for 2009.  Let me commend a few.

Crossway Publishers has compiled a list of 10 Reading Plans that will help you get through the Bible in 2009.  Included in this list is Mc’Cheyne’s One Year Reading Plan . This is the reading plan used in D.A. Carson’s For the Love of God (Vol. 1 and Vol. 2).  Another helpful reading plan is the one commended by John Piper, Discipleship Journal Reading Plan . Both of these plans are excellent, as well as, the  Daily Reading Plan and the Chronological Reading Plan.

Personally, I will continue to use my own reading plan which includes 1 chapter from the gospels and 1 from the wisdom literature  in the morning; 4 OT history chapters at night (during the week), Psalms at dinner time and Sunday mornings, and 8-10 chapters of NT epistles or Minor Prophets on the Weekends.  I use this plan because of its relative flexibility and the fact that it includes material from every genre of the Bible each week, though not every day.  By God’s grace, this plan will take me through the Bible in 2009, with a little extra in the NT.

So in 2009, what is your plan? 

It matters less which one you choose, and more that you have one. It is already January 3, and time to get going.  I pray that God will bless the time you spend in his Word. He has promised to us that he will meet with us in His living Word (cf. Heb. 4:12).  So, take this book and read, and may the Lord open your eyes to the wonders of his Word.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

P.S. Eric Schumacher has given us an ESV Study Bible reading schedule for the articles and outlines to complement our Bible reading.  I commend to you this guide, but admit with other reading this year, I will have to utilize this plan at a later date.

(HT: Justin Taylor who has a more expansive explanation of these Bible Reading Plans; Jim Hamilton at Moore to the Point who referenced Eric’s blog)

Irenaeus Upholds Sola Scriptura [3]

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

Irenaeus3 Long before Paul Tillich, men like Valentinus were engaging in theological accommodation and “methods of correlation.”[1] David Dockery says of Valentinus, “His hermeneutical approach was more sophisticated than Marcion, beginning with a simple literal interpretation of the biblical passages and moving to a more esoteric instruction on ethical and spiritual truth.”[2] In response, Irenaeus excoriates Valentinus, saying, “They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures,” and then use their wicked schema to tie biblical phrases together to come up with another system of doctrine.[3]

Irenaeus, on the other hand, from first to last is explicitly biblical. He outlines his method as one completely derived from the Bible, and he rejects Gnosticism on the basis that they corrupt the perfect word of God. Concerning the veracity of God’s word, he declares:

Our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and no lie is in Him. As also David says, prophesying His birth from a virgin, and the resurrection from the dead, “Truth has sprung out of the earth.” The apostles likewise, being disciples of the truth, are above all falsehood; for a lie has no fellowship with the truth, just as darkness has none with light.[4]

Earlier Irenaeus affirms divine inspiration, biblical inerrancy, and the apostolic authority of the Scriptures, writing, “the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit.”[5] Congruently, Irenaeus holds to the unity and clarity of the Scriptures when he says, “the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all.”[6] In short, though centuries before the Reformation and the publication of systematic treatments of doctrine, this second century divine is firmly evangelical. He argues for Scripture’s inspiration, inerrancy, authority, sufficiency, necessity, and clarity.

Though some have argued that Irenaeus’ regula fidei, which appealed to apostolic tradition to defend Scripture, led to “a precedent for setting up church traditions as being of equal authority with Scripture,”[7] it can be equally discerned from his writings that the ultimate authority is the Bible itself. Contending against the Gnostics, whose fallacious doctrines had no historical warrant, he appealed to the church because the church is the “pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). In reading Against Heresies, it does not appear that Irenaeus himself is elevating tradition to the level of authoritative Scripture, but rather that he exhorts people to flee to the church because it is the church that possesses the life-giving Word of God.[8]

[1] The “method of correlation” was coined by Paul Tillich and encourages a dialetic approach to the Scripture where philosophy asks the question and the Bible supplies the answer. It is a twentieth century version of what the heretics have always done, comingle biblical truth with worldly philosophies (cf. Colossians 2:8). See Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson, Twentieth-Century Theology: God and the World in a Transitional Age (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1992), 114-29.

[2] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now: Contemporary Hermeneutics in the Light of the Early Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1992), 60.

[3] Irenaeus employs one of his most colorful quotations to illustrate what these false teachers are doing. He writes, “Their manner of acting is just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed by some skilful artist our of precious jewels, should then take this likeness of a man all to pieces, should re-arrange the gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox, and even that but poorly executed” (Irenaeus Adversus haereses 1.8.1).

[4] Irenaeus Adversus haereses 3.5.1.

[5]Uniting inerrancy, inspiration, and authority together in one sentence, Irenaeus avows, “; but we, inasmuch as we are inferior to, and later in existence than the Word of God and His Spirit, are on that very account destiture of the knowledge of His mysteries” (Irenaeus Adversus haereses 2.28.2).

[6] Irenaeus Adversus haereses 2.27.2. He continues in 2.28.3, “all Scripture, which has been given to us God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent; and the parables shall harmonize with those passages which are perfectly plain; and those statements the meaning of which is clear, shall serve to explain the parables; and through the many diversified utterances [of Scripture] there shall be heard one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all things.”

[7] Michael Haykin, Defence of the Truth (Webster, NY: Evangelical Press, 2004), 39; see also David Dockery’s appraisal in Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, 71-73.

[8] See Irenaeus Adversus haereses 3.1-5 for a detailed section of his appeal to the “rule of faith” and the historical importance of the church to arbitrate right doctrine. Irenaeus Adversus haereses 5.20.1-2 gives an interpretive key for Irenaeus’ reasoning for appeals to the Church.

Messiah in the Old Testament: A Rap

/ davidsschrock

In class today, Dr. Jim Hamilton released his latest attempt at poetry, only this time it was delivered in the form of a rap.  Following in the footsteps of another SBTS Professor’s Philosophy Rap, Hamilton’s “Messiah in the Old Testament” surveys the Old Testament world of the Bible, pointing all things to the seed-crushing son of God, Jesus Christ. 

This illuminating and engaging rap culminated a rich, intra-textual look at the Bible that Dr. Hamilton provided in his class by the same name– “The Messiah in the Old Testament.”  I look forward to his forthcoming biblical theology, where much of the material will be published. 

Here are the first and last three stanzas:

God promised a seed, who would crush the serpent’s head
Adam and Eve hoped in what God said
This can be seen from the naming of the wife
Whereas death was promised, the promised seed means life …

…So if you want to know what Jesus said
On the road to Emmaus from the law and prophets
Beginning from Moses, in all that was written
Opening their minds, explaining what was hidden 

Look to the writings of the New Testament
Where the men taught by Jesus tell us what he meant
They show us how to read the OT
And Jesus sent the Spirit to help you and me 

So spread the good news that the battle is won
The curse is reversed, the new age begun
We long for the day when he returns
The Spirit and the bride say, “Come, Lord, come.” 

I hope you will read the rest and return to your Bible’s singing the songs of the savior–in whatever style you prefer–rap, country, gospel, folk, or rock.  You can read the rest of this faith-enriching, biblically-informing rap here.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Looking for the Kingdom of God in the Book of Ezekiel

/ davidsschrock

When was the last time you preached Ezekiel?  Not from Ezekiel, but Ezekiel.  Not Ezekiel 16 and God’s graphic castigation of Israel’s spiritual whoredom; not Ezekiel 36 and the promise of a renewed heart and a clean spirit; not Ezekiel 37 and the valley of dry bones; I mean Ezekiel, the whole thing? 

If you did decide to preach Ezekiel, where would you try it out?  Would it be a trial run in a Sunday School class?  Would it be at youth lock-in–you’ve got to be there all night anyways?  Would it be to a group of eager seminarians?  Or would it be at one of the largest churches in the Southern Baptist Convention?

This weekend, a good friend of mine, Grant Gaines, had the opportunity to preach to Bellevue Baptist Church (Memphis, TN), and he delivered an outstanding message. Challenging BBC to see the kingdom of God, he preached the whole book of  entitled: “Looking for the Kingdom: The Message of Ezekiel.”

His three points were: There is Sin to be Punished, chapters 1-24; There is an Enemy to be Defeated, chapters 25-32; and There is a Kingdom to be Established, chapters 33-48.  His faithful message exemplifies canonical preaching, biblical theology, and a Christocentric hermeneutic.  I encourage you to listen to it yourself, to consider his example, and to look for the kingdom–and if you have the chance: Preach Ezekiel! 

For more examples of preaching the Bible book-by-book, see Mark Dever’s The Message of the Old Teastament: Promises Made and The Message of the New Testament: Promises Kept .

May we all be unashamed to preach Christ from every verse, chapter, and book of God’s inspired Word.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss